Singapore Kopitiam

How prestigious is an llb at king's? Would a king's law graduate be preferred over an nus law grad! and is it worth going to king's? i got rejected by lse and ucl which were pretty much my top choices

No one in the Singapore legal industry cares where you are from (as long as it's recognised). The legal industry is so small and insulated that prestige counts for very little. In other words, a KCL LLB graduate wouldn't be preferred over an NUS LLB graduate and vice versa. Obviously, you may not have the 'connections' if you aren't from NUS, but whether that matters is entirely up to you.

Whether it's worth it or not depends on your priorities, though if you want to work in the City rather than return to Singapore, it's obviously going to be better to start here. The job market for Magic Circle recruiting has been pretty shabby the past two years, but by the time you graduate, they should be hiring again, and KCL has a great reputation for law in the UK.

well, you can say that. but there's a reason why there's a bigger proportion of graduates from the london unis, bristol, nottingham, as compared to the rest [Soton, manchestre, leeds etc] in the Big 4. i do agree that how far u go depends on your own efforts rather than a piece of paper with a certain institution name on it

the legal industry however is no longer so insulated with the gradual liberalisation of the sector. we have more schools being recognised, and more foreign firms are given license to practice here. in time one can only expect foreign lawyers to be able to argue in the courts here.

Don't you think that's also because a larger proportion of Singaporeans (who successfully get a second upper) would rather go to so called brand name universities? It's not difficult to get a pupillage (or if you like, training contract now) at the Big Four anyway so the "percentage" doesn't say very much; if anything, I bet University of Manchester is better known than University of Bristol. Why? Because of Man U.

Hmmm, but just because a larger proportion of Singaporeans would rather go to so called "brand name" universities doesnt mean a larger proportion of Singaporeans successfully get into so called brand name universities. So just because there are a larger no of lawyers from certain unis cannot be automatically attributed to the fact that a large number of SIngaporeans go to these "brand" unis. On the contrary, a no of graduates from these "brand name" universities might have secured training contracts with magic circle firms in the uk. So there MIGHT be a lesser number coming back to qualify here. There is a certain level of selectivity even in the Unis themselves.

Im not too sure how difficult it is to get a pupillage at Big Four, though it seems like you do. Have you gone through the application process yourself? And just because Manchester U is better known that Bristol doesnt mean it is better known as a good/better university.

Also assuming we take your line of argument and Manchester is really better known than Bristol - Yet Manchester seems to have far fewer lawyers in the top 4 compared to Bristol (perhaps you can go do this check for yourself among the big 4... hardly any, if any - though one can only browse thru the profiles of the partners), which u think is not as ... "better known", then there seems to be some incoherency, no? Why isn't there as many lawyers from a better known university like Manchester in the big 4, compared to Bristol?

Hmmmmm.

First, to even have qualified to be a lawyer in Singapore in the past and be hired by a Big Four firm, you had to get a second upper. If you are capable of getting a second upper, chances are, you were probably capable of getting into a good, BLE recognised university based on your A Level results, given that the grades needed to get into these universities do not differ much. If I get the same grades and could choose to go to either Oxford or Oxford Brookes, I would go to Oxford. So my point was simply that of course there are more people from Oxbridge, London Universities etc at Big Four firms, because more Singaporeans capable enough to get hired would have gone there, not because partners discriminate against 'lesser' universities.

My point of Bristol vs Manchester was based solely on the original question of "prestige" level. Ask the typical Singaporean, or - if you want to continue the point about the legal industry - even the recruiting partner of a firm whether they think there's an appreciable difference between Manchester and Bristol such that ceteris paribus, they would hire a Bristol lawyer over a Manchester lawyer simply because of that. I never said Manchester is a better university, and as it is, I don't know myself because I didn't go to either and I'm wary of rankings.

As for the partners point, I have gone through the partner profiles and there are more partners from NUS than Oxbridge, ergo, NUS is the better university. Of course not, it also depends on the flow of lawyers. More Singaporeans do law at NUS than Oxbridge; more Singaporeans do law at Bristol than at Manchester. My 'incoherent' logic is a point about quantity, not quality.

I didn't apply to any of the Big Four firms in Singapore, so perhaps I'm not qualified to say anything about their recruiting processes, but I know plenty of people who did and I've spoken to partners of all four firms, and they all 'say' the same thing to me: if you have a qualified degree and you are good, we will hire you. When I said it's not too difficult, it's a supply and demand issue as well.

So if Im capable of getting a second upper at say... Exeter, can one automatically assume that one can do the same at the likes of UCL or Oxford or LSE? Im not saying its not possible nor am I implying any form of intellectual inferiority. But I dont think it is very correct to automatically use a "if u can get a second upper at university, u confirm could have gotten into a good BLE recognised uni". You're using a reverse form of assumption instead of a "if you can qualify for a gd BLE university, u shld be able to get a second upper", which even I must say, isn't very correct also.

Come on. Do you really expect employers to say, "No no no, we hate that university. Dont go to that one. Go to this one. We only hire from this particular law school"? Of course not. Employers, partners, etc are gonna say... You know what, go wherever you can go, do your best, and ure good, we'll hire you. They say that to EVERY one... in uni internship fairs, at interviews, at those little stands they put up during the legal forums. Im not saying its misleading... but i think that is what they call HR replies.

NUS might not be better. But years ago, NUS was the only singapore law school and they had to have a certain quota of Singapore-law trained lawyers from the beginning. And it will be hypocritical and incorrect for them to only hire from the overseas law school since they do have their own law school. Hiring locally is on an entirely different agenda altogether. E.g SMU might not be superior, but theyre definitely not gonna see trouble getting jobs too. As much as SIngapore might want to hire ONLy oxbridge graduates, sadly, she is obliged to hire her own lawyers too. Its a fact.

Let me throw a spanner in this wheel on law firms in Singapore.
Psstt. For my info ...Who are the "Big Four" in the legal industry, and what is the impact with lawyer migration. Does the esteemed lawyer make the name or vice versa or maybe the clients.

This threadd is dying.. *attempts to resuscitate by performing CPR*

I don't understand what you mean about reverse assumption; pardon my inability to reply this point in this aspect.

If you were capable of getting a second upper at Exeter, assuming the grade ranges to get in at Exeter were ABB - AAB, yes, I think you are capable of getting into Bristol or KCL. Whether you are capable of getting a second upper at the abovementioned universities, I don't know.

I don't know if you applied for law in UCAS, because the grade offer ranges (at least in the past) were very narrow. My argument was all along a simple statistical point.

Fact: More Singaporeans go to Bristol to do law rather than Exeter or Manchester, and more Singaporeans do so because you need the same grades to get in, and I would obviously choose the 'better' university. Therefore, it is not surprising to see more Singaporean lawyers from Bristol than Exeter.

That was what I was referring to.


No, I can distinguish between PR replies and a real reply; however, I don't think they were just trying to convince me that I wouldn't be discriminated against either. But the fact is, the original question was: Is there a real difference in prestige level between KCL Law and NUS Law. My answer was no, and remains no. Is there a real difference in prestige level between Manchester and Bristol? I really can't see it, and if I were in recruitment, I wouldn't see it either. Is there a real difference in prestige level between NUS Law and Manchester Met? Yes.





I don't understand the point of this part, because my "numerical" comparison was merely a reply to the more partners from Bristol point. But as a digression, there's no reason why partners would only want to hire Oxbridge graduates, given that Oxbridge probably produces ten Singapore lawyers a year, half bonded to PSC and the other half happily earning their money slaving in the City of London. Even if they wanted to, there wouldn't be the supply.

I am tired at the sight of the arguments. Indeed, this thread is dead!